Voter ID Laws

Leave it to politicians to politicize common sense. That’s what happening on both sides of the aisle when it comes to voter identification, though Democrats are pressing the bounds of politicization much further. The latest example is the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to address a North Carlina voter ID law struck down by a lower court.

The Democrats say such laws are racist. They know that minorities are less likely to have valid forms of identification, so they make them the victims of laws that require identification in order to vote. They stop with voting, though. They don’t point out that the same should apply to buying age-restricted items like tobacco or alcohol. There are other situations that require identification, but we’ll focus on that one.

By law, one has to present a valid form of identification in order to purchase restricted items. If progressive sensitivities (aka their liberal agenda) say that voting is a right that should not be taken from someone just because they don’t have proper identification, shouldn’t the same be said about buying beer? Cigarettes? If someone is a U.S. citizen who has chosen to not get valid identification, why should their right to purchase items be removed based upon racial discrimination? They should just be able to go in and say that they’re of a valid age just as a voter can in North Carolina today.

If that doesn’t make any sense to you, it’s because you can’t warp your brain to the way that a liberal is required to think.

One might wonder how the Republicans are politicizing it. The reality is that they have a solution. All they have to do is set a law declaring acceptable forms of identification for all age-restricted activities. Buying alcohol or tobacco would be included. Entering premises that cater to adult patrons such as bars, casinos, or strip clubs would be included. Some things, such as buying a firearm, require two forms of valid identification. And yes, voting should be included on the list because it’s age-restricted as well.

The challenge in doing this is two-fold. First, it would mean consolidating individual laws listing requirements for specific age-restricted activities into one which would be a much larger task than most realize. The second reason is catering to special interest groups. Oversight in many industries such as alcohol and tobacco is already established and appreciated. Changes, even for the sake of preventing voter fraud, are frowned upon by these groups. With the solution staring them in the face, they refuse to act upon it.

Would voter ID laws affect minority voter turnout? Yes. Is that bad? If we don’t politicize it and isolate it outside of the concept of voter fraud, then again the answer would be Yes. Once voter fraud is brought into the equation, everything changes. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2007), the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana state law that required all voters to present a photo ID. The majority opinion found that the burden placed on voters was “offset by the benefit of reducing the risk of fraud” and that the law was “eminently reasonable.”

This same argument was made and failed in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. There’s a good chance it wouldn’t have failed in the Supreme Court, but we’ll never know because they were too busy to consider it.

Written by JD Rucker
+JD Rucker is Editor at Soshable. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, and founder of Dealer Authority. He drinks a lot of coffee, usually in the form of a 5-shot espresso over ice. Find him on Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest.